But What About the Homer Simpsons?
Atlanta Journal Constitution journalist Cynthia Tucker said this about the Obama Speech, yesterday on "This Week":
This Speech was not aimed at rank and file voters. It was aimed at political elites, mostly superdelegates.
It's a great point.
To be blunt: Unless Obama tattoos a swastika on his forehead, declares allegiance to al Qaeda AND cheats on Michelle with a white boy, Clinton is not going to surpass him in pledged delegates, popular vote, or States won. The only immediate political exigency he has left is to shore up enough support among the superdelegates to block his opponent's last path to the nomination. Obama needs to (re-)assure them in a measured and intelligent manner that he has the social, intellectual and rhetorical capital to rise above the "scary Black man"/anti-American motif planted by the Rev. Wright controversy. This is exactly what an Obama candidacy will face in the general election, and there has been growing concern that it would cost him (and the Democrats) the Presidency.
The Democratic superdelegates are people who pride themselves as having an intellectual streak, roots in the Civil Rights movement, and a hankering to rely on their "better angels" (yes, even class-A in-fighters like Rahm). And among them, I think the Speech was successful (witness Richardson's endorsement).
That said, there was a secondary and a terciary audience for whom the Speech was a mixed bag.
Among Obama supporters (regular citizens and journalists alike), it also reassured them. To paraphrase one excitable blogger, it was like giving the ball to Michael Jordan or Joe Montana with seconds left on the clock, holding your breath, and then sighing in relief when they came through as you knew/hoped they always would. Don't discount this secondary audience. Their support is critical to maintaining positive reinforcement in the media echo chamber.
The tertiary audience is, as Fox News and George Stephanopoulos (!!) has so frequently reminded us, the dominant voting block in a general election - white, working-class males. For these guys, there's a paradox: One Speech isn't going to do it (in fact, certain de-contextualized points of the Speech exacerbate the problem). But a few more of these Speeches, and Obama becomes "the Black candidate" - something that will undoubtedly sink his chances in the general.
Hmm...
This Speech was not aimed at rank and file voters. It was aimed at political elites, mostly superdelegates.
It's a great point.
To be blunt: Unless Obama tattoos a swastika on his forehead, declares allegiance to al Qaeda AND cheats on Michelle with a white boy, Clinton is not going to surpass him in pledged delegates, popular vote, or States won. The only immediate political exigency he has left is to shore up enough support among the superdelegates to block his opponent's last path to the nomination. Obama needs to (re-)assure them in a measured and intelligent manner that he has the social, intellectual and rhetorical capital to rise above the "scary Black man"/anti-American motif planted by the Rev. Wright controversy. This is exactly what an Obama candidacy will face in the general election, and there has been growing concern that it would cost him (and the Democrats) the Presidency.
The Democratic superdelegates are people who pride themselves as having an intellectual streak, roots in the Civil Rights movement, and a hankering to rely on their "better angels" (yes, even class-A in-fighters like Rahm). And among them, I think the Speech was successful (witness Richardson's endorsement).
That said, there was a secondary and a terciary audience for whom the Speech was a mixed bag.
Among Obama supporters (regular citizens and journalists alike), it also reassured them. To paraphrase one excitable blogger, it was like giving the ball to Michael Jordan or Joe Montana with seconds left on the clock, holding your breath, and then sighing in relief when they came through as you knew/hoped they always would. Don't discount this secondary audience. Their support is critical to maintaining positive reinforcement in the media echo chamber.
The tertiary audience is, as Fox News and George Stephanopoulos (!!) has so frequently reminded us, the dominant voting block in a general election - white, working-class males. For these guys, there's a paradox: One Speech isn't going to do it (in fact, certain de-contextualized points of the Speech exacerbate the problem). But a few more of these Speeches, and Obama becomes "the Black candidate" - something that will undoubtedly sink his chances in the general.
Hmm...
Labels: Politics
posted by isaacjosephson at 10:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home